OoO En cette soirée bien amorcée du vendredi 30 mai 2008, vers 22:42,
William Vera [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait:
In fact, is not a bug, because vfu say 'support' for list and read,
does not depend on them (unzip, bzip2, etc) for build o run the
program.
Well, without unzip, vfu is unable to
Hi
2008/5/31 Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OoO En cette soirée bien amorcée du vendredi 30 mai 2008, vers 22:42,
William Vera [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait:
In fact, is not a bug, because vfu say 'support' for list and read,
does not depend on them (unzip, bzip2, etc) for build o run the
* Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080530 22:08]:
Keep in mind that my background is in RPM building, where the emphasis
is on distributing pristine source code. I was initially
shocked/dismayed by the Debian approach because the source code gets
untarred and fiddled with by the packager.
On Saturday 31 May 2008, William Vera wrote:
Dear mentors,
Hi,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 14.17-1
of my package hwinfo.
Looks solid. Uploaded.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89
Paul Johnson wrote:
While testing
this out, I realize I've made some mistakes while attempting to revise
the Makefile to match the packaging requirements. It appears to me
that I have to 1) move the debian directory to a safe place, 2) erase
the code tree, 3) untar a fresh copy, 4) copy the
OK, thanks for the advice yesterday. I think we are agreeing on
principle, it is just the implementation that's concerning me now.
I'm starting back at the basics. I'm building stuff for Ubuntu
workstations. Because I don't know how to manage patches (did not
decipher quilt or cdbs yet, but
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 03:19:02PM -0500, Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm randomly downloading packages. If you can point me to one that
has source code patches correctly applied, I'd really appreciate
it. I want to get it right :-)
http://packages.qa.debian.org/usermode
The usermode source debian
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just need to see some examples of how this can be done. I wonder if
I'm running into a problem that is peculiar to Ubuntu. I can't find
packages that follow the principles we were discussing yesterday. In
fact, I can't find any that adhere to this
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I've converted most of my packages to use Git, which
means that the source package as uploaded to Debian has one collapsed
patch including upstream changes and you have
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just need to see some examples of how this can be done. I wonder if
I'm running into a problem that is peculiar to Ubuntu. I can't find
packages that follow the principles we were
On Sunday 01 June 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--cut--
If there were 50 patches, some of which others contribute, there might
be a chance to figure which one blows something up. As long as the
patches are separate, there's a chance I could back-track and
Paul Johnson wrote:
At some point,
I'm hoping to be able to generate format 3.0 packages from Git in some way
that exposes the way that I'm actually working to other people working on
packages.
I can't understand why you would do it this way. Seems like it would
lead to hard-to-catch
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, will you generate at some point a series logically separeted quilt
patches and store them in debian/patches/ in the final diff.gz which is
the canonical way of Debian to distibute changes.
I'm currently not doing this for a very prosaic reason: I
On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:57 -0500, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Keep in mind that my background is in RPM building, where the emphasis
is on distributing pristine source code. I was initially
shocked/dismayed by the Debian approach because the source code gets
untarred and fiddled
14 matches
Mail list logo
